The Washington Post is unhappy with the House Ethics Committee’s interpretation of its restrictions on lobbyist-financed parties at national political conventions.

Moreover, the committee pointed out, the rule applies only to parties “directly paid for” by lobbyists: “The fact that a private organization received some of its funding for an event during a national convention from a lobbyist or private entity that retains lobbyists would not . . . disqualify a member from participating in the organization’s event.” Hard to imagine a clearer road map for lobbyists interested in getting around the intent of the new law.

What else was the committee supposed to say? The law forbids congressmen from participating in a convention party honoring them “if such event is directly paid for by a registered lobbyist.” What else is “directly” doing in that provision, if not allowing indirect payments? The Post’s problem is with the ethics law, not the ethics committee.